On Apr 28, 2011 11:39 PM, "Fae" <faenwp@gmail.com> wrote:
> This story has run in several newspapers today (Thursday) and shows
> that Wikipedia has processes that can protect articles (which most of
> the public would be unaware of) and that prompt action is taken when
> verifiability or legal issues are outstanding.
>
> * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/8479272/Wikipedia-users-name-celebrities-with-gagging-orders.html
> * http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862006-wikipedia-names-super-injunction-celebrities
> * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381487/Wikipedia-names-4-UK-celebrities-sex-scandal-super-injunctions.html
> * http://www.techdigest.tv/2011/04/superinjunction.html
>
> I would be interested to know if any other members have opinions on
> how well the press interest was handled by WM-UK and whether we would
> have been better off saying more, less or putting our case more fully
> on the WM-UK blog http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk ?
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org